Creationism

[nikemare02]

Anyone that has proof of creationism without using evolution as a counterargument or post.

[nospam][/nospam]

 

[Follower of Christ]

We don't counter argue anything.

I state that ALL the evidence used to ''prove'' evolution, actually fits right into a young earth created in 6 days.

As for Proof, we Have only what scientists (secular and creationist) have found.

We state that evolutionists ''interpret'' the evidence from thier biased, secular humanistic point of view.

Just as we do from OUR Biblically based (biased) point of view.

A big difference between 6 day creationist and evolutionists is that we at least admit our view is biased toward our Gods account.

 

[wblastyn]

I state that ALL the evidence used to ''prove'' evolution, actually fits right into a young earth created in 6 days.

Except it doesn't.

 

[Follower of Christ]

PROVE that it doesnt...

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

The evidence does not support Creationism. Someone who had never considered either side would never conclude that the earth was 6000 years old after examining the evidence. Just looking at human history makes it obvious that there simply isn't time for Noah's family to populate six continents and establish the various early civilizations.

 

[Follower of Christ]

Today at 07:09 PM fragmentsofdreams said this in Post #5

The evidence does not support Creationism. Someone who had never considered either side would never conclude that the earth was 6000 years old after examining the evidence. Just looking at human history makes it obvious that there simply isn't time for Noah's family to populate six continents and establish the various early civilizations.

You know what I find humorous about this type of arguement is when I look at history books that are just a little more that 125 years old.

The change in humanity in just over 125 years is astounding and you all expect me to believe that 4000 years isnt long enough for change.

I want you all to find out how things were at the time the King James Bible was being translated (ONLY 400 YEARS AGO) and just look at how different everything is now.

4000 years is an eternity for man to change.

I raise rabbits as a hobby.
My rabbits change in appearance dramatically EACH generation.
In 4000 years I am sure I could breed MANY hundreds of variations of rabbits.

Contrary to you evolutionist mindset, Change can happen VERY rapidly.

 

[Follower of Christ]

Today at 09:20 PM chickenman said this in Post #8

shared pseudogenes are evidence that cannot fit with the YEC theory

I have been looking into this one.

Please elaborate on why you think this ''evidence'' cannot fit into a young earth.

I ask this because what I have seen so far presents no problem to my Young Earth belief and I am wondering if I may have missed something that you may know of.....

 

[Follower of Christ]

Instead of me typing for 3 weeks, let me show you what I found.


"The persistence of pseudogenes is in itself additional evidence for their activity. This is a serious problem for evolution, as it is expected that natural selection would remove this type of DNA if it were useless, since DNA manufactured by the cell is energetically costly. Because of the lack of selective pressure on this neutral DNA, one would also expect that ‘old’ pseudogenes should be scrambled beyond recognition as a result of accumulated random mutations. Moreover, a removal mechanism for neutral DNA is now known."

&

"As the function of more pseudogenes is being uncovered by testable and repeatable science, it is evident that these genetic elements, which are copiously spread in the genomes of different organisms, have been created with purpose. The recent finding of insertion hotspots also clarifies how pseudogenes may have appeared to evolutionists as shared mistakes and now invalidates their use in phylogenetic studies."



I am no geneticist, so I can only go by what information I get and can understand in laymans terms.
This seems to cover your issue.

This is a new topic for me, so you will have to bear with me.
I am not Kent Hovind and I like to investigate a little before making big assumptions.

So far I am not convinced that this pseudogene issue is a problem for Young Earther's.

 

[Follower of Christ]

Not to question your obvious authority in this matter, but could you tell me exactly WHY YOUR information is any more trustworthy than that of AIG's or any other creationist?

I believe I did understand what you were saying (even with the technical language), but you seem to only be repeating what I read on someother sites that AIG and others are claiming is incorrect.

And correct me if this is wrong, but from what I have read, all the data on this issue isnt even in yet.

 

[Follower of Christ]

Thanks, I really want to look into this one.
I usually have to debate evolutionists to find any real issue to research.

 

[Follower of Christ]

I am searching but for some reason, I am not coming up with any real information on this "broken urate oxidase pseudogene"

could you please steer me to a site with lots of info ?

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Today at 08:01 PM Follower of Christ said this in Post #7




You know what I find humorous about this type of arguement is when I look at history books that are just a little more that 125 years old.

The change in humanity in just over 125 years is astounding and you all expect me to believe that 4000 years isnt long enough for change.

I want you all to find out how things were at the time the King James Bible was being translated (ONLY 400 YEARS AGO) and just look at how different everything is now.

4000 years is an eternity for man to change.

I raise rabbits as a hobby.
My rabbits change in appearance dramatically EACH generation.
In 4000 years I am sure I could breed MANY hundreds of variations of rabbits.

Contrary to you evolutionist mindset, Change can happen VERY rapidly.

However, if Creationism is true, we should have history diverging from Noah. Instead, we find evidence of civilizations older than the supposed age of the earth. Humanity's history is longer than 6000 years.

Also, domestication is highly aggressive selection. If humans can cause animals to evolve, why can't it happen on its own in nature with non-human selection pressures?

 

[Follower of Christ]

Evidence that civilizations are older than 6000 years?
Does someone around here have a time machine?


I can breed attributes I like into my bunnies.
I am working on a breed now that will hopefully weigh less than 1.2 pounds when full grown (good reason for buyers to NOT eat them).

The buck recently born seems to be going to be less than 1.2 lb. (unless he explodes).

When I breed him back with his mother (sounds disgusting, I know), the bunnies born in his litter should weigh 1.25-1.4 pounds fully grown.

All this control is done with LOSS of information.

I am breeding out the variables that create larger rabbits leaving only information for smaller rabbits.

Its actually Very predictable.
And people just love small rabbits for pets (NOT dinner)

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Today at 10:21 PM Follower of Christ said this in Post #19

Evidence that civilizations are older than 6000 years?
Does someone around here have a time machine?

Yes, one is called the oxidation of obsidian...

You see when you chip an obsidian arrow point the newly exposed areas begin to oxidize at a known and predictable rate.

So unless God is personally going around and messing up every single obsidian arrowhead ever made to trick people into going to hell, we know that people were making tools out of obsidian well over 6000 years ago.

I can breed attributes I like into my bunnies.
I am working on a breed now that will hopefully weigh less than 1.2 pounds when full grown (good reason for buyers to NOT eat them).

The buck recently born seems to be going to be less than 1.2 lb. (unless he explodes).

When I breed him back with his mother (sounds disgusting, I know), the bunnies born in his litter should weigh 1.25-1.4 pounds fully grown.

All this control is done with LOSS of information.

I am breeding out the variables that create larger rabbits leaving only information for smaller rabbits.

Its actually Very predictable.
And people just love small rabbits for pets (NOT dinner)

Okay, how do you know there has been a loss of information? Did you have the bunnies DNA tested?

A loss of expression of a trait does not mean in the least but a loss of DNA or a loss of information.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Today at 12:21 AM Follower of Christ said this in Post #19

Evidence that civilizations are older than 6000 years?
Does someone around here have a time machine?


I can breed attributes I like into my bunnies.
I am working on a breed now that will hopefully weigh less than 1.2 pounds when full grown (good reason for buyers to NOT eat them).

The buck recently born seems to be going to be less than 1.2 lb. (unless he explodes).

When I breed him back with his mother (sounds disgusting, I know), the bunnies born in his litter should weigh 1.25-1.4 pounds fully grown.

All this control is done with LOSS of information.

I am breeding out the variables that create larger rabbits leaving only information for smaller rabbits.

Its actually Very predictable.
And people just love small rabbits for pets (NOT dinner)

Yes, changes occur because genes are eliminated. However, new genes accumulate over time from mutation. If two major changes happen in a short period of time, there will not be enough time for new mutations to occur and the species will die out. This is what happened during the ice age. Mammoths and sabertooth tigers evolved heavy fur in response to the Ice Age, but when the climate changed again after only a few thousand years, they were unable to change again.


BTW, how do creationists put all of the extinct species in history? Were they around before the Flood and got killed off? Also, do they believe that an Ice Age happened?

 

[Follower of Christ]

Once the bunnies are small, their decendants can only become larger if I introduce a large rabbit somewhere ( which doesnt usually make the little bunny happy)

Same thing with Dogs.
You take the Rottweiler. It will only produce that breed (as long as it purebred) unless a non-Rott is introduced.

I found out in breeding my rabbits that months of hard work can be undone by introducing a mutt rabbit.

I can actually determine size, shape, color and hair length by carefully selecting which rabbits I breed.

I see the mutation thing and creationist accept it.


Its very obvious that Creationists (as I am) cant come up with new and ingenious facts to prove creation.
I really dont think God wants it that way to begin with.

We see all the evidence and to us it easily fits into a Young Earth created in 6 days.

The arguement is pointless, neither side is listening. Both sides claim victory.
Both sides Claim the evidence supports thier views.

I ask ''who is correct''
Both sides will claim they are.

It all boils down to where ones faith is.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Over time (a long time), the rabbits would acquire mutations that slightly increased or decreased their size. The distributions of size would spread out until they hit the point that being larger or smaller would be disadvantageous and the mean size would settle on the ideal size for the environment.

 

[Follower of Christ]

Over the long haul, mutation could very well affect thier size, shape, color, etc., again.

I fail to see how Gods design for adaptability or even mutation would prove evolution, though.
They will adapt to thier environment if possible, but they remain rabbits.

 

[wblastyn]

They will adapt to thier environment if possible, but they remain rabbits.

Give them enough time and they'll adapt so much that they will no longer be able to produce fertile offspring, which makes them a new species. Eventually after millions of years it will no longer look anything like the original rabbit.

 

[Follower of Christ]

Today at 01:40 PM wblastyn said this in Post #26


Give them enough time and they'll adapt so much that they will no longer be able to produce fertile offspring, which makes them a new species. Eventually after millions of years it will no longer look anything like the original rabbit.

The idea that one group gets divided into 2 and at some point cease to be interfertile does not prove anything beyond loss of information.
They are still rabbits.
Anything stated beyond that is unproven speculation.